Standing Committee D

[Mr. Peter Pike in the Chair]

Age-Related Payments Bill

Clause 7 - Power to provide for payments

Question proposed [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill. 
 Question again proposed.

Steve Webb: Important issues are still outstanding. The Committee will recall that it is the ''we really do not want to have to do so this all again'' clause. It allows the Government at any time to pass regulations to bring in a new scheme of payments related to age or other factors, unconnected to those in the rest of the Bill, to anyone over 60 years of age at any time in the future. The only safeguard in terms of scrutiny is an affirmative resolution having to be passed by both Houses.
 The power is too sweeping for us to allow the clause to stand part of the Bill. I observed that the Government's thinking behind the payments is that they would be ad hoc. They used that phrase in a written answer to me. It is outrageous that we are being asked to give power to them to make unlimited ad hoc payments to pensioners whenever there is a problem. The Minister said that we needed the Bill quickly because there was a problem with council tax. We do not know whether the Government are anticipating future problems, such as elections. The idea that we give them a blank cheque to write unlimited amounts to people aged over 60 is unacceptable. 
 I have three further objections. Nothing in the clause caps the amount provided. The Bill deals with £500 million of taxpayers' money. Given that we had the best part of a day on the Floor of the House discussing it and will have more time on Report, at least that sum will have had a day and a half of scrutiny. However, if the clause is accepted, the Government could spend any number of billions of pounds inventing a completely new scheme of payments to the over-60s with only 90 minutes of parliamentary scrutiny. 
 It is incredible that some Departments are scrutinised to the nth degree for their expenditure of the odd million of pounds here and there, yet the Department for Work and Pensions can shower billions of pounds around with practically no parliamentary scrutiny. Clause 7 allows it a licence to do that. At the very least, there should be a limit on the scope of a scheme that can be introduced and we 
 should be able to return to it on Report by tabling an amendment. At the moment, the clause is a blank cheque. 
 My second objection is that it allows only inadequate scrutiny of a new regime. We decided that giving £100 to everyone was as simple as it gets. Yet even that was the subject of detailed scrutiny this morning and on Second Reading, as it will be when we return to the Bill on Report. Clause 7(2) allows the Government to introduce a scheme when not only age, but any other ''specified circumstances'' can be brought into play. A fiendishly complicated scheme could be introduced, yet we would only have 90 minutes to consider not only a huge amount of taxpayers' money, but that complex scheme itself. The scrutiny proposals under clause 7 are inadequate. 
 My third observation also relates to scrutiny. The Committee knows that the 90-minute affirmative procedure allows us to make no amendments. It is a yes or no, take it or leave it process. It is not as though we can say that we like the principle but not the detail. The Government could come up with a scheme that requires a vast amount of taxpayers' money. Those proposals might be far more detailed than the ones that we have discussed, which are to be contained in an Act of Parliament. But after only 90 minutes of scrutiny, the Government could then say, ''Take it or leave it. Lump it or not.'' That is an unacceptable way for the Department to approach the spending of taxpayers' money. We are unhappy that the clause found its way into the Bill.

David Tredinnick: On a point of order, Mr. Pike. I appeal to you: is it possible for the blinds to be raised? The sun has gone in and is now off the Terrace. It is cloudy outside and all the lights are on.

Peter Pike: I am sure that that can be arranged, although it is not a point of order.

Nigel Waterson: As much as it grieves me to say it, I largely agree with the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb). The more I examine the clause, the more I wonder whether we should have a Division on it. As I said in my remarks on amendment No. 7, the clause sticks out like a sore thumb. We have the Government's stated intention of the one-off ad-hoc—whatever phrase they want to use—payment to pensioners. We all have views on the real motivation behind that. However, buried in the Bill is the power to make payments on almost any grounds as long as the recipient is over 60. We know that people over 60 are four times more likely to vote in an election than 18 to 25-year-olds, so it remains to be seen whether there is any connection. I suppose it depends who they vote for.
 We are very suspicious of the clause and I share many of the hon. Gentleman's concerns about the process. If the Minister wants to get it through without a Division, he will have to be more forthcoming. The most we got out of him during his introduction to this far-reaching clause was that it would be implemented if the Government judged that there was a need. That is not good enough. He must specify the need that he 
 is talking about and what bases he has in mind. If, as just a vague twinkle in his or the Secretary of State's eye, there is the idea that at some time in the future the Government might want to shove a load of money in the direction of the over 60s, why on earth are we debating it at all? If that need arises, we can go through this process all over again. We are pretty flexible; we can always turn up for another day and do all the things involved in producing laws. 
 The Government are asking for a blank cheque. What do they have in mind? As we see the inexorable rise of means-testing, will the Government become more and more hooked on giving one-off gifts—bounty—to older people and pensioners in our society, rather than doing the sensible thing and adopting our policy of restoring the link with earnings?

Malcolm Wicks: Dropped in the 1980s.

Nigel Waterson: If the Minister looks to the future, rather than the past, he will see that by the middle of this century more than 80 per cent. of pensioners will be on means-tested benefits according to his projections. It already stands at 59 per cent., and that figure will rise inexorably. Perhaps he can tell us whether that is just a side effect or a central aim of his policies to give the Chancellor more and more control over more and more individuals in our society.

Malcolm Wicks: I intervene to bring the hon. Gentleman back to the subject of the clause and the relevance of the Bill. On Second Reading, he objected to the measure being introduced in primary legislation; now, he is objecting to a clause that will allow for secondary legislation. Which does he object to most?

Nigel Waterson: For the record, I did not object to the proposal being introduced in primary legislation. I just wanted to know when the Minister realised that it needed primary legislation. I made some ill-judged remark about expletives at the time, but I would still love to have been a fly on the wall when some hapless official came to see him or, more likely, the Secretary of State, and explained that they would have to tell the Chancellor that the measure would require primary legislation. If it needs primary legislation, I do not object to that—who could, if that is what it needs? However, having decided to give this bung to people over 70, it is a bit rich that the Government have now decided to plant in the Bill the alien idea that the so-called one-off payment can be replicated on goodness knows what grounds at some time in the future.
 Ministers must come clean. If there is just a vague notion that at some time the Government may need—to use the Minister's word—to make another payment, they must say so. Perhaps we should abandon the clause and wait for the need to arise. Things can move fast if they need to, as we are demonstrating with our proceedings on the Bill. On the other hand, if there are plans—perhaps only half-formed ones at the 
 moment—we ought to be told, particularly as the clause refers to the over-60s, whereas the rest of the Bill addresses only the over-70s. 
 There is an important consideration, which goes to the heart of the Government's attitude of giving pensioners one-off payments to try to make up for the fact that they are having a pretty raw deal. Mr. Duncan-Jordan of the National Pensioners Convention, stated that it was his belief 
''that the Chancellor's statement was made simply to gain publicity'', 
and to gain votes, he might have added. He went on to say, rather more to the point, 
 ''One-off payments such as this are not the answer to pensioner hardship. They are often seen by the public as just cynical attempts to grab votes.'' 
Heaven forfend, of course, but does the Minister not understand that simply giving pensioners one-off gifts makes them a part of the Government's client group? Perhaps that is what the Chancellor has in mind, but is it really what the Department for Work and Pensions should be about? If its real intention is that the payments become an annual event like the Christmas bonus, why not say so? We all understand the political difficulties of trying to take things away from people, so why be so bashful if this is intended to become an annual gift to pensioners along the lines of other existing gifts? I do not understand why the Minister is being so coy. If the Government have no developed plans to make use of clause 7, the Bill would be better off without it.

Malcolm Wicks: I thank the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) for shedding some light on the debate. I will try to deal with his points and those raised by the hon. Member for Northavon.
 Opposition Members are making a great meal out of this. It is the most innocent of provisions. I add only two things to my earlier remarks. First, in recent years lump sum payments, through winter fuel payments, have become a feature of the social security system. This Bill will introduce a £100 payment against the criteria that we have discussed. 
 As such payments have become a feature of contemporary social policy, and nobody can predict what their future use will be with any great certainty, we feel that it is not unreasonable for us to take powers so that we can introduce them in secondary rather than primary legislation. We were able to introduce the winter fuel payments through existing powers because of the cold weather payment provision in the social fund. However, that related to issues about the cold weather in winter and the need to help elderly people in that way, whereas this £100 is for an altogether different situation. 
 Secondly, there is a need for speed. It is more expensive to introduce primary legislation than secondary legislation, but it can also take four and a half months or so to get a Bill through Parliament. We can do things more quickly through secondary legislation, albeit with proper scrutiny, and the Social Security Advisory Committee can play a role as well. 
 There is not much more than that to this provision. It is sensible, and I hope that hon. Members support it. 
 Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 6, Noes 3.

Question accordingly agreed to. 
 Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 - Interpretation

Nigel Waterson: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in
clause 8, page 5, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
 I apologise to the Committee in advance. I could not resist tabling the amendment because, hidden among much more mundane definitions, part of the subsection leaps off the page. The bit that gets me is ''with any necessary modifications''. I wonder what wealth of real-life detail that encompasses. 
 Apparently, the prospect of polygamous marriages is among the detail that has been examined in advance. I did not know that they were legal in this country, but assuming that they are, one wonders how many people we might be talking about—not how many people are in a given marriage, but how many in total might be affected. Legally or otherwise, if one were Polynesian or Mormon, one could have several wives all living under the same roof, but they would be treated as constituting one couple and would receive only £100.

Malcolm Wicks: They could have several husbands.

Nigel Waterson: I believe that that is possible in theory. In this enlightened modern age, some modern men might be happy to be one of several husbands of a modern woman. I do not know for sure, but the provision is interesting and we need to be told a bit more about it. How would it work? Is there any basis on which the £100 should be divided up between them? How are polygamous marriages to be defined?
 I was under the distinct impression that such marriages are not permitted in English law, although I might be wrong. Why should they be singled out? If they are permissible and legal, and, indeed, encouraged under a particular set of religious beliefs, why should not all the people involved be entitled to their £100 providing that they are all over 70? We must remember that they must all be over 70, so we are talking about a long running polygamous marriage. 
 That just seems to be another layer of complexity which the Government seem intent on adding to the Bill. 
 Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. 
 On resuming—

Steve Webb: Just before we suspended, the Conservatives made a shameless bid for the polygamous vote among the over-70s. That is obviously part of a new strategy for targeting the electorate. There were also yet more examples of tax and spend. The hon. Member for Eastbourne implied that he would shower the £100 on any number of wives. It was quite shameless.
 I am unclear whether the amendment would help or hinder those in polygamous marriages. It would take the provision for such marriages out of the Bill completely, leaving the question of what the default position would be. On one reading, the default position might be that each partner will get 50 quid, so not having a specific provision for polygamous couples to be treated as one might therefore result in multiple £50 payments. I am not sure whether that was the hon. Gentleman's intention or whether he did not want to provide for this group at all. 
 It is worth including the provision for this rare group so that we know where we stand. Having it in the Bill is probably preferable to not having it. However, I want one thing clarified, which arose during discussions on previous social security Bills. Is polygamous in this context taken to mean polyandrous as well?

Malcolm Wicks: The answer to the last question is yes.
 The amendment would remove the provision to treat the members of a polygamous marriage as a single couple for the purposes of the £100 payment. I was not entirely clear what the Opposition were getting at—whether they wanted to be more generous than us or meaner. The hon. Member for Northavon took the more generous interpretation. I am sure that things will be clarified later. 
 The clause is largely technical. Its purpose is to define words used in the Bill and to set out, among other things, that members of a polygamous marriage will be treated as forming one couple. The provision clarifies what is to be paid to members of a polygamous marriage. They will be treated as one unit and receive £100, however many of them are over 70. 
 There are not many polygamous marriages in Britain, although I understand that there are no firm figures. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there may be a few hundred such relationships among the elderly. I must check that—if anecdotal sources can be checked. The numbers are reducing because since August 1988 immigration legislation—section 2 of the Immigration Act 1988 to be specific—has prevented a polygamous wife settling in Britain with her husband if another wife is already in the country. It has been a long-standing 
 convention that benefit rates for couples are lower than twice the single rate because two can live more cheaply than one. Equally, we believe that three can live more cheaply than two. Our approach takes into account one household, one council tax bill and one payment. 
 As this matter is of interest to the Committee, I can inform hon. Members that valid polygamous marriages that are contracted outside the UK are recognised for certain social security benefits. Obviously, polygamy cannot be initiated in this country. Second and subsequent wives are treated as dependants for income-related benefits, but polygamous marriages are not recognised for contributory benefits. Given that we are only talking about one payment, our approach follows the position set out on winter fuel payments. 
 I hope that I have clarified that this is about polygamy in the general sense, so it is also about polyandry, where a woman would have more than one husband, should she choose to take that step. Polygamy is where a man has more than one wife. The provision is all-encompassing. Despite the Opposition's concerns about the wide-ranging nature of clause 7, we would not use the provision to make the situation compulsory.

Nigel Waterson: I am grateful for the Minister's explanation. I am surprised, if not slightly alarmed, to hear that there may be several hundred polygamous marriages among the over-70s, although he was good enough to say that he was not sure whether that was across the board.
 On reflection, the generation of hippy commune dwellers from the 1960s may produce a boom in indigenous polygamous relationships as they get older. There are a lot of ageing hippies around, usually with long pigtails and bald heads. They are an historic group and must be recognised as such. However, the Minister was right to remind us that polygamy is against the law, except for those marriages that were initially contracted outside the country. I am relieved to hear that. 
 On balance, although my amendment would have been more generous to people in polygamous marriages, I do not want to upset the shadow Chancellor, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Waterson: I have a couple of points to make, although I know that everyone is anxious to get back to the Gender Recognition Bill in the Chamber.
 The definition of a couple seems a little out of date, given the Government's Civil Partnership Bill. It refers, in a rather dogmatic and old-fashioned way, to 
''a man and a woman who share a household''.
Although I have not looked at the detail of the Civil Partnership Bill, I assume that sooner or later an amendment will be needed to bring this Bill into line with it, or vice versa, unless the Government are reverting to the more traditional approach of a couple, meaning a man and a woman.

Malcolm Wicks: I think that I am right in saying that because this is a one-off payment, the Civil Partnership Bill will not apply to the £100 that will be paid later this year.

Nigel Waterson: But it might arise in the context of future payments as set out in clause 7. I would not like the Minister to be taken to the European Court of Human Rights by a homosexual couple who felt that they were missing out on their payments.
 Another thing that slightly puzzles me, although it may just be me, is the definition of ''single'', which 
''in relation to an individual, means not part of a couple''. 
That seems to raise issues of policing and so on. To go back to the Civil Partnership Bill, there is a school of thought that says that the potential benefits to be gained under that legislation, particularly in relation to inheritance tax, will mean that it becomes a source of tax planning for better-off and better advised gay couples. In the context of this Bill, how is one to define whether someone is part of a couple? 
 Presumably, the term involves some sort of sexual relationship—or does it? I hark back to what the hon. Member for Northavon said in a different context about a brother and sister. Indeed, one could talk about two friends, male or female, who happen to have lived together for a long time and are now over 70. The provision needs a bit more clarification. I am sure that the term has to be put in the broader context of social security legislation generally. It would be nice to have some further background.

Malcolm Wicks: Although the provision once again essentially replicates winter fuel payment provisions, it has regard to different forms of household composition and relationships, hence our need to detain ourselves with the slightly esoteric issue of polygamy. Having arrived at definitions of criteria, we must be on our guard to ensure that, where appropriate, those can be adequately policed, just as we have to take action, with appropriate evidence, if someone says that they are single for income support purposes, but turn out to be cohabiting. In most of the provisions, there is not much scope for abuse, but there is always possible abuse in the social security system, and we must be on our guard against it.
 On the hon. Gentleman's remarks about all the '60s hippies, now past the age of 70, still living together in communes, my guess is that some of those relationships did not last beyond the first track of a Rolling Stones album, let alone stand the test of time. 
 By and large, cohabiting relationships are less likely to be secure than those based on marriage; that is a matter of fact. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Extent

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Steve Webb: There can only be one question about clause 10: what about Northern Ireland? Presumably, the argument is that there is no council tax there, and so the payments do not apply, or will the Northern Ireland Office, through an Order in Council, make a corresponding provision for domestic rates there? Presumably, that would be quite a burden on the over-70s. I hope that the Minister will clarify that.
 When I draft amendments, I like to get things right, so could the Minister explain why the clause is drafted so as to say 
''(a) England and Wales, and (b) Scotland'', 
rather than ''England, Wales and Scotland''?

Malcolm Wicks: I am not sure of the answer to the last question. In terms of law and constitutional arrangements, notwithstanding the Welsh Assembly—and I do not want to get into trouble with anyone—England and Wales are often grouped together. The Scottish system is rather different; the answer could simply be that. I do not think that the issue affects the payment of the money, so I do not want the hon. Gentleman to worry too much about it.
 The hon. Gentleman was right to suggest that an Order in Council will be introduced as soon as possible to provide for payments to be made to eligible pensioners in Northern Ireland at the same time as payments are made to pensioners in Great Britain. I should add—as we currently do on such occasions—that, in the event of a return to devolved Government 
 in Northern Ireland before the Order in Council is made, the issue would of course become a matter for the Northern Ireland Assembly. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Citation

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Nigel Waterson: It would not be right to let the Bill's relatively short passage through Committee not be marked by a return to the central criticism that many of us made on Second Reading and earlier today. It is misleading to call this legislation the Age-Related Payments Act; it should be the election-related payments Act.
 Although it might have failed miserably in its intent, the Bill is clearly designed to buy off trouble over council tax increases, which are in large measure a result of Government action or policy, and to try to get them out of a hole on 10 June. I do not think that it will win them a single extra vote; it will just cost £500 million. We do not begrudge £100 to the over-70s, whether they need it or not. I hope that those who get it make good use of it. It is only a pity that they will not get it until eight months after they need it. On that basis, I have serious reservations about whether it is in order for this to be called the Age-Related Payments Act rather than the election-related payments Act.

Peter Pike: I remind the Committee that the debate is narrow, but the Minister can respond to that point.

Malcolm Wicks: I will not be provoked, Mr. Pike.
 Just occasionally—every two minutes, in fact—the hon. Gentleman wanders off into the long grass, much of it political. I think that the people of the United Kingdom who are in eligible households will be pleased to receive £100. Given the concern about council tax, that is important. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Bill to be reported, without amendment. 
Committee rose at seventeen minutes past Three o'clock.